analogy from our other senses, certain proportions which are immediately and permanently beautiful. Others have accounted for this beauty from the union of uniformity and variety. Some have supposed it to arise from the consideration of utility. Others have asserted, that the beauty of forms arises from their commonness, and that the beautiful form is that which is most generally met with in objects of the same kind. Mr. Hogarth, in opposition to all, considers the beautiful form, as being described by lines of a particular kind, and has produced a great variety of instances in support of his opinion.

It is not my design at present, to enter into any examination of these several opinions. In all of them, I believe, there is something true to a certain extent; though I believe also, that they have arisen from a partial view of the subject, and are inadequate to account for the greater number of the phenomena. I may be allowed, however, to observe, that of the two, the common opinion is by much the most defensible. To reduce the great variety of instances of beauty in forms to any single principle, seems, at first sight, altogether impossible; not only from this variety, but also, in innumerable cases, from the contrary nature of the forms, which, in fact, are beautiful. theory, besides, can possibly be maintained without some foundation in nature, the number of theories which have been produced upon this subject, are, in themselves, an evidence, that this beauty arises from more causes than any one of these theories comprehends.

As no

The principle which I have endeavored to illustrate, with regard to the beauty and sublimity of sounds and colors, will, perhaps, be found to be equally applicable to the beauty or sublimity of forms: and as far as I can judge, is free from the objections which may be stated, both to the common and the philosophical opinions. In the observations which follow, I

maintained? What is Mr. Hogarth's opinion? What is not, at present, our author's design; and what does he, of all of them, believe? What, however, may he be allowed to observe? What seems, at first, altogether impossible; and why? As no theory can possibly be maintained without some foundation in nature, what follows? The principle already illustrated is equally applicable to what; and from what is it free? In the observations that follow,

shall therefore endeavor to shew, that the sublimity or beauty of forms arises altogether from the associations we connect with them, or the qualities of which they are expressive to us ; and I shall endeavor to explain, with as much accuracy as I am able, the different expressions of which forms are susceptible, and which are the foundation of that sublimity and beauty which we ascribe to them. The importance of the subject, will, I hope, be my excuse for the length, and perhaps for the tediousness of some of these illustrations.

Forms are naturally divisible into two kinds, into animated and inanimate forms. It is the latter of these only which I propose at present to consider; as it is obviously necessary first to consider the source of the beauty of which form itself is capable, before we can properly ascertain that superior beauty which arises from animation.

With regard to inanimate forms, the principal expressions which they have to us, seem to me to be, 1st, The expressions of such qualities as arise from the nature of the bodies distinguished by such forms; and, 2dly, The expressions of such qualities as arise from their being the subject or production of art. The first of these constitutes what may be called their NATURAL beauty; the second, what may be called their RELATIVE beauty. There is, also, another source of expression in such qualities from accidental association, and which, perhaps, may be termed their ACCIDENTAL beauty.

Upon each of these sources of the beauty of forms, I shall offer some observations.

therefore, what shall our author endeavor to show; and what shall he endeavor to explain? Of the importance of the work, what is observed? Into what two kinds are forms naturally divisible? Why does our author propose to consider the latter only? What seems to be the principal expression of inanimate forms? What do they respectively constitute? What other source of expression is there?

SECTION I.

OF THE NATURAL SUBLIMITY AND BEAUTY OF FORMS.

PART I.

OF THE SUBLIMITY OF FORMS.

THE sublimity of inanimate forms seems to arise chiefly from two sources: 1st, From the nature of the objects distinguished by that form; and, 2dly, From the quantity or magnitude of the form itself. There are other circumstances in the nature of forms, which may extend or increase this character; but I apprehend that the two now mentioned, are the only ones, which, of themselves constitute sublimity. Both of them, I believe, are productive of this effect, by being expressive to us of qualities capable of exciting very strong emotions.

I. 1. The forms which distinguish bodies that are connected in our minds with ideas of danger or power, are in general sublime. There is scarcely any thing in inanimate nature more remarkably so, than all those forms which are appropri ated to the instruments of war. The forms of cannon, mortars, &c, have all a character of this kind. Military ensigns, although approaching to very common and neglected forms, partake of the same character. There are few things more sublime than the forms of armor, particularly the steel armor, which was in use in the middle ages. Even the familiarity of common use does not altogether destroy this effect-the sword, the spear, the javelin, the dagger, are still sublime forms, and enter with propriety, into the sublimest descriptions, either of poetry or painting.

From what two sources does the sublimity of inanimate forms seem to arise? Of other circumstances in the nature of forms, what does our author remark? How are both of them expressive to us of this effect? What forms are, in general, sublime? What forms are remarkably so? What are examples ? Of military ensigns, and of the forms of armor, what is observed? What is remarked of the effect of the familiarity of common use;

2. The forms that in general distinguish bodies of great duration, and, which, of consequence, express to us great power or strength, are in most cases sublime. In the vegetable kingdom, the forms of trees are sublime, principally in proportion to their expression of this quality. Nothing is more sublime than the form of rocks, which seem to be coëval with creation, and which all the convulsions of nature have not been able to destroy. The sublimest of all mechanical arts is architecture, principally from the durableness of its productions; and these productions are, in themselves, sublime, in proportion to their antiquity, or the extent of their duration. The Gothic castle is still more sublime than all, because, besides the desolation of time, it seems also to have withstood the assaults of war.

3. The forms which distinguish bodies that are connected in our minds, with ideas of splendor or magnificence, are in general sublime. The forms of the throne, the sceptre, and the diadem, approach, in fact, to very common and very neglected forms, yet they are all sublime, from being the signs of the splendor and magnificence of royalty. The triumphal car, and the triumphal arch, are sublime forms, from similar associations.

4. The forms in the same manner, which distinguish bodies connected in our minds with ideas of awe or solemnity, are in general sublime. The forms of temples, although very different as forms, have, in all ages been accounted as sublime. Even the most common forms employed in religious service, derive a character of this kind from the qualities with which they are connected. The thunderbolt of Jupiter, the trident of Neptune, &c. seem to have been considered by the ancients as sublime forms, although, in themselves, they are insignificant. The forms of all those things, in the same manner, which are employed in the burial of the dead, are strikingly sublime. The pall, the hearse, the robes of mourners, &c. even the plumes,

and what instances of illustration are mentioned? What other forms are also in most cases sublime? How is this illustrated from the forms of trees -the forms of rocks-the forms of architecture-and the gothic castle? What other forms are, in general, sublime? How is this illustrated from the forms of the throne, the sceptre, the diadem, and the triumphal car and arch? What other forms are, in general, in the same manner sublime? How is this illustrated from the forms of temples-the forms employed in religious service-the thunderbolt of Jupiter-and in the pall, the hearse, and the robes of mourning?

which in general are so beautiful, and the color of which is in most cases so cheerful, are, in this situation, above all other things, powerfully sublime.

That these and probably other associations of a similar kind, have an effect in bestowing sublimity upon the forms which generally distinguish such bodies, every person, I think, will be satisfied, both from his own experience, and from conversation. That the sublimity of such forms arises from the qualities which they express, and not from an original fitness in any peculiar form to produce this emotion, is so apparent, from the single consideration of the great variety of forms that are sublime, that I will not fatigue the reader by any further illustration of it.

II. The sublimity of forms, in many cases also, arises from their magnitude; and this quality, alone, is often sufficient to bestow sublimity. With magnitude, accordingly, we have many distinct and powerful associations.

In animal forms, magnitude is strongly associated in our minds with the idea of proportionable power or strength; and is chiefly sublime from its expression of this quality. Animals of great size, but feeble or harmless, are so far from being sublime, that they are in general contemptible-a fact which may easily be observed, even in the opinions of children.

In inanimate forms, magnitude seems to have different expressions to us, according to its different appearance or description.

Magnitude in height, is expressive of elevation and magnanimity. The source of this association is so obvious, and the association itself so natural, that such qualities of mind, have, in all ages, been expressed by these images, and such magnitudes described by terms drawn from these qualities of mind.

Magnitude in depth is expressive of danger or terror, and from

Of what may every one be satisfied, both from his own experience, and from conversation? What remark follows? From what does the sublimity of forms, in many cases, also arise; and of this quality, what is observed? In animal forms, with what is magnitude strongly associated; and why is it sublime? What is remarked of feeble animals of great size? According to what, does magnitude in inanimate forms vary in its expression? Of what is magnitude in height expressive; and of this association what is observed?